Sorry Viscid but when I'm talking about action, I'm talking about it in the phenomenological, Buddhist sense of the word, where the Buddha describes action as involving intention, not the modern scientific rendering. Rightly so you state that breathing doesn't involve consciousness. You're right, but for the purposes of this discussion I would relegate breathing from the realms of action, as action implys a choice, and it is not our choice to breathe, but simply something that is bound up with the body.

So I reiterate that action involves intention, and one cannot turn on the television unconsciously, by it's very nature - intention is implicit, and so is the presense of consciousness. Therefore - I am not wrong.

mettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

I don't think the Buddhist 'intention' and the phenomenological 'intentionality' are actually compatible, so I don't know why you bring up phenomenology at all. It's just confusing.

Watching television requires little deliberation when you're habituated into the act. In fact, it probably would require more intentional effort to get yourself to not watch television than to watch it. And there are lots of actions I do with little to no intent behind it-- during my morning routine, I regularly forget if I put on shampoo or deodorant because those actions are so automatic for me. It is insufficient to describe an act as either intentional or unintentional, as some actions (such as buying a car) require much more intentional effort than others (like putting on your socks.)

You're welcome to disagree with me, which is all I can see in the above post. Nothing much to dissuade me from what I believe to be quite self evident.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

But this is a potentially fruitful discussion about television watching (and more generally, habitualized action.)

Ben said people choose to watch TV, and that it's good for them.

Firstly, I think we have different definitions of what we mean when we say 'TV.' I gather Ben's concept of 'TV' is a device which receives and displays transmitted sound and video. The television itself is a benign technology (it doesn't harm us directly in its operation) but the habitual behaviour by which we engage with it is potentially harmful: if you watch for over 4 hours a day, you're probably at greater risk of developing health issues due to the sedentary nature of excessive television watching. Another concept of 'TV' is the body of programming that is transmitted and consumed by a receptive audience through that device. Most people don't watch documentaries and enriching content on television. If we were to survey what people are watching on TV at any given time, I believe we'd see more people watching sitcoms, reality shows and other empty programming which presents the world in a distorted way. This is in no way 'good' for people.

Secondly, we have different perceptions of what it means to make a decision [to watch television.] Kim said that some people (those that are habituated into watching television) aren't making a choice when watching television. Ben says, and Jack confirmed via Buddhist Phenomenology, that there is indeed a choice. Now, while I agree one can say that a decision to watch television is being made (ritualistically) every time the television is turned on, it is not as if that decision wasn't made under the incredible pressure of the past. If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do something you don't want to do, can you really say it was your decision to do that act? Well, yes in one way and no in another. It's the same with habit: yes, theoretically you can opt-out of committing the habitualized action, but it's quite unlikely you will, unless there is substantial pressure to alter it.

Viscid wrote:But this is a potentially fruitful discussion about television watching (and more generally, habitualized action.)

Ben said people choose to watch TV, and that it's good for them.

Firstly, I think we have different definitions of what we mean when we say 'TV.' I gather Ben's concept of 'TV' is a device which receives and displays transmitted sound and video. The television itself is a benign technology (it doesn't harm us directly in its operation) but the habitual behaviour by which we engage with it is potentially harmful: if you watch for over 4 hours a day, you're probably at greater risk of developing health issues due to the sedentary nature of excessive television watching. Another concept of 'TV' is the body of programming that is transmitted and consumed by a receptive audience through that device. Most people don't watch documentaries and enriching content on television. If we were to survey what people are watching on TV at any given time, I believe we'd see more people watching sitcoms, reality shows and other empty programming which presents the world in a distorted way. This is in no way 'good' for people.

Secondly, we have different perceptions of what it means to make a decision [to watch television.] Kim said that some people (those that are habituated into watching television) aren't making a choice when watching television. Ben says, and Jack confirmed via Buddhist Phenomenology, that there is indeed a choice. Now, while I agree one can say that a decision to watch television is being made (ritualistically) every time the television is turned on, it is not as if that decision wasn't made under the incredible pressure of the past. If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do something you don't want to do, can you really say it was your decision to do that act? Well, yes in one way and no in another. It's the same with habit: yes, theoretically you can opt-out of committing the habitualized action, but it's quite unlikely you will, unless there is substantial pressure to alter it.

I don't really disagree with anything you're saying here.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Not nearly as much as I did when I was much younger (before the internet).

When my kids were younger, we all watched The Simpsons but stopped several years ago when they outgrew it and the writers changed (not so good anymore).

Today, about the only things I watch are the news, some documentaries and sports. And not all sports, primarily just NBA basketball playoffs, some American football, soccer but only the World Cup, no league competitions, and a few sports of the Olympics (World Cup & Olympics are only once every 4 years).

I think we need to extend the discussion to all forms of media, and the extent to which they can be a distraction. I've met people who proudly announced they got rid of their TV, but it turns out they are spending hours on the internet instead, which includes watching films, and yes, you guessed it, TV programmes.

Vern Stevens wrote:Ben did not say TV was good for them, Ben said TV is a medium that can be good or bad based on how people choose to use it.

I actually did say that "TV is good for you" on the first page of the thread. However, I was being a bit cheeky and facetious.However, I maintain that TV is no better or worse than other household objects.What we choose to watch on tv, and how we choose to interact with the content, is ultimately our own responsibility.kind regards,

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

I watch very little TV but do sometimes watch a movie; I've a fairly large DVD collection. Practically the only television I watch is sports programmes - I'm not interested in all the sex, violence and rhetoric shown on many movies & TV shows.

PeaceFluke

-- PeaceFluke

Ho! ye who suffer! knowYe suffer from yourselves. None else compels, None other holds you that ye live and die,And whirl upon the wheel, and hug and kiss Its spokes of agony,Its tire of tears, its nave of nothingness.

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Good for you Digity! Im completely with you. No t.v means more free time to do other things more in touch with reality. I gavr up t.v this year and i have never looked back. Im so happy i did. Any news i need to can aquire on my mobile. I too have a subscription with love film not netflix i use the light use package so as not to go overboard.

Buddhe wrote:Good for you Digity! Im completely with you. No t.v means more free time to do other things more in touch with reality. I gavr up t.v this year and i have never looked back. Im so happy i did. Any news i need to can aquire on my mobile. I too have a subscription with love film not netflix i use the light use package so as not to go overboard.

Xx

Thats almost what I was going to say, since going to digital, I haven't watched TV, and Ive never looked back, in fact I consider deciding not to pay for cable and having no TV was one of the better decisions in my life, Why, because in my history Television has addictive potential, I've wasted an incredible amount of time watching nothing, Cheers, Seinfeld, the Simpsons, Frasier,etc etc with the exception of the Simpsons maybe, complete garbage, and over the years I noticed in my most productive periods, very little TV, when I'm depressed and lazy; tons of TV, practically half the day, and all the night!!

So I had already made up my mind that for me, at least, TV wasn't healthy, Then along comes digital, I'm too far from the transmitter to pick it up on antenna, and someones telling me I've got to pay for TV, I'd rather pay for DSL and use a computer, remember the old joke you can't talk to the TV unless you're crazy, well on internet forums and email, the computer talks back, you're actually having online conversations with interesting real people, not movie stars, all over the world, now that's my idea of a slightly, at least, more healthy addiction.

18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John